If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are correct. The U.S. Government doesn't endorse a religion. And right there is where the FF's intended the words "Congress shall pass no law..." to end in regards to the 1st Amendment.

It wasn't intended for what the anti Religion zealots have turned it into.

Again, I agree. The anti-theists and militant minority religions have gone way too far with this issue. Just remember, there are more anti-theists than there are atheists. Atheists don't really care all too much. It's the militant ones, the anti-theists, that cause the issues.

“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” – Ayn Rand

Like I have said, it is not in the 1st Amendment. It is in Thomas Jefferson's explanation, or description, of the 1st Amendment as written in the letter to Danbury. I brought it up because someone said that "seperation of church and state" was never said. I added a technicality.

A separation of church and state and the elimination of any mention of God in or by government are two different things.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

You are correct. The U.S. Government doesn't endorse a religion. And right there is where the FF's intended the words "Congress shall pass no law..." to end in regards to the 1st Amendment.

It wasn't intended for what the anti Religion zealots have turned it into.

Jefferson believed that religion was between Man and his God not man, his god, and his government. This is the principle of seperation and it is a principle that goes both ways not just one. You cannot inject religious beliefs into government, and govenrment is prevented from stopping you, and have a country based on religious freedom. It simple does not work for somewhere the establishment of those religious tenets interferes with someone elses beliefs. Therefore the only way for religious freedom to exist is for religion to be left out of government...

Again, I agree. The anti-theists and militant minority religions have gone way too far with this issue. Just remember, there are more anti-theists than there are atheists. Atheists don't really care all too much. It's the militant ones, the anti-theists, that cause the issues.

The First Amendment basically states that the US would neither establish nor support a state religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

There are two parts to this statement, both equally important, especially in the context of the late 18th century when it was written. The American colonies were mostly Protestants of varying sects, with a concentration of Catholics (especially in Maryland) and a smattering of Jews, some who had been in North America since the days of New Amsterdam.

European wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, starting in the 16th century, in addition to the proliferation of Protestant sects, many of whom had been oppressed, targeted, or expelled, made it vital for the budding United States NOT to establish an official church, like the Church of England. However, this in no way indicated that the nation was to be secular. It would have been unthinkable at the time to have had a nation of atheists (or secular humanists). Hence, the second part of the amendment: the new government would not prohibit the free exercise of any religion by its adherents.

So to answer Peter's contention that the nation is secular, the answer is "no", the nation is not secular. The government may not establish a religion nor prevent religious people from practicing their beliefs, but the First Amendment does not create "a secular nation." The government's role is to stay out of the way of religious practice, neither dictating nor preventing it. This way, the government could not exile people, imprison people, or torture and kill them (as had been done in Europe since Martin Luther) based on the existence of a state church or the religion of any given monarch.

Now, does this give freedom from religion? By default, yes it does. Since there is no official state church and the government is out of the membership enforcement business (which is what European government were, in fact, doing), atheists, agnostics, and non church goers could not be coerced by the government into being an Anglican, a Catholic or anything else. This does not mean, however, that the government's job was to enforce atheism--it wasn't. This also does not mean that your God-fearing neighbors can't give you a hard time about not belonging to a church--they can. They just can't deny you the rights guaranteed by your government as a result. So, they cannot prevent you from teaching in a public (state) school, but they can prevent you from teaching in their private religious institution.

As the Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people (and not the rights of the government) it is safe the say that the First Amendment's guidelines on religion were specifically designed to recognize the religious freedoms of the people, not create a government that would enforce secularism.

The notion of secularism is very much a product of the Reformation. The development of modern secularism stems from devout Christians who were aghast at the devastation caused by the religious wars that swept across Europe. In Protestant countries there was initially an attempt to translate the principles of the religious community into the wider political community; that, however, failed due to the growing divisions between Christian sects. This forced a reduction of overt and explicit references to specific Christian doctrines...reliance upon Christianity, if it remained, became more general and more rationalized. In the end, political and cultural secularism occurred because of Christians who realized that overtly Christians states did far more harm than good.

Secularism is neither a right of government nor ideology solely of atheism but a philosophy whereby the beliefs of one are separate but equal to the beliefs of another. And I might add this is the basis principle that freedom is built upon.

To strip secularism from government is no different than to strip freedom from ourselves....